< It warms the heart | Main | I know! >
April 15, 2007
Let us consider the name
Greetings and salutations of the day, Greet Machine reader! Today the home team lost, but that certainly didn't dampen my spirit as the mercury soared to a wonderful 62 degrees. Ah, what a day for outdoor baseball! It is a shame the Twins play indoors ... What? What's that you say? The Twins will begin playing in an outdoor stadium in 2010?!?!? O frabjous day! But won't the people that hate America, apple pie, and their own mothers be upset? Yes, I agree this is an unfortunate reality. Luckily it doesn't matter since building a ballpark is actually a Minnesota state law now! What a deal!
Now that we know that a ballpark will be built, I think we should turn our attention to what it will be called. I think it is a given that it will not be named after Target, Xcel Energy, or TCF Bank. Those entities have already made their name available to other locations. So, I present you with this list of the possibilities. Please vote for what you think the ballpark will be called!
Betty Crocker Park is for all the anti-stadium types since the nickname of the park can be "The Crock"!!! Get it? So, hopefully you can see I do care about you!
If I have forgotten any potential name please put it in the comments. If there is a really good suggestion we may have to create another poll.
Vote early and vote often! Or just once a day since that is all I'm allowing you!
Posted by snackeru at April 15, 2007 05:25 PM
Comments
It is gorgeous outside today. I think I have ballpark fever. So, any of the anti-stadium people think about my post from last night? I want to know if you will go to games in the new ballpark. I could understand if you didn't, because going to a game, even with a free ticket, would be supporting the very thing you are preaching against...but, perhaps you will go because you want to have an open mind and see why so many of us have been wanting this for ten years. C'mon, I want to know.
Posted by: Derek at April 15, 2007 06:54 PM
Why?
Posted by: mark at April 15, 2007 07:28 PM
I find it interesting how secretive the county is on just what is going on. I believe we already have one open meeting violation lawsuit filed, correct?
The Burlington Northern issue is strangely silent also. Anybody notice?
Judging by the talk a year ago and the plans submitted to the public it sure seems somebody was telling us we were getting 150% more than what we got.
Where are the Twins Shouldn't they be out there talking? All I see is a lot of..........silence.
Really a shame.
Posted by: jeff at April 15, 2007 07:40 PM
I was at the game today...and I kept dreamin' about watching today's game outdoors.
Man, what a sight it will be when the sun is beating down on the Twins, and making those crisp, white jerseys glow.
Go Twins!!!
Posted by: Erik at April 15, 2007 08:43 PM
I vote for lambrecht Field. It's funny how he was the bad guy for all of this time and now all we hear about is the RR holding up the process. Did the land mysteriously move in the past week or did the RR buy off O-Putz and the other HC board members? They should name the restrooms after each of the HC board members. Then we could say, "excuse me while I go to the Opat" or "excuse me, could you please tell me where the Penny is"? The HC board is the culprits in this and their part should be acknowledged. And dispite their best efforts at fumbling a great opportunity for the state, it's going to happen and we are going to have outdoor baseball again. Watch the HC board trip over each other at the groundbreaking and other key media opportunities.
Posted by: Jimmy Jack at April 15, 2007 10:03 PM
Wells Fargo Field or Harry Crump Field. If it wasn't for Judge Crump, we wouldn't be talking ballpark right now.
Posted by: kevin in az at April 15, 2007 10:50 PM
How about Ameriprise Field
Posted by: MOJO at April 15, 2007 10:59 PM
"The county will take possession of the ballpark property by condemning the land as soon as the Twins and the Burlington Northern Railway agree on terms of liability and insurance.
The Twins will contribute an unspecified dollar amount for infrastructure that will offset the county’s final land payment, a balance to be determined in court.
The Twins are spending $130 million to construct the ballpark itself, and whether their additional capped contribution is sufficient remains to be seen."
What is with the secrecy. Someone would almost be inclined to think, cough cough, that people are up to nefarious stuff.
Posted by: mary at April 16, 2007 06:44 AM
How about Hennepin County Taxpayer's Playfield?
Posted by: mary at April 16, 2007 06:45 AM
How about:
In Your Face Whiners! Field
Posted by: Freealonzo at April 16, 2007 07:26 AM
Derek -
I was born and raised here. Neither I, nor anybody I know, has been to a Twins game in 35+ years. Our quality of life hasn't suffered. So I don't know why we'd start attending games now?
Only a few more days 'till the NFL draft though!!!
Posted by: STM at April 16, 2007 07:27 AM
By the way; Of those on your list, only U.S. Bank or Best Buy would have the interest or ability to pony up for this, but I'd doubt either one would associate their name with this scam, so that only leaves one company underhanded enough to walk into this deal:
Marquette Financial Field.
Get used to it.
Posted by: STM at April 16, 2007 07:44 AM
Shane,
While Best Buy and US Bank or obvious, you missed the big one: Wells Fargo Field. Why Wells? Wells (previously Norwest, previously Northwestern National Bank and Weatherball) is Carl's bank. (No, he doesn't own it--he banks there.) They bought is his branches the last time he sold Marquette, they fund alot of his projects. Jim Campbell was very active in the "Minnesota Wins" and other efforts.
Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 16, 2007 08:54 AM
Wells Fargo Field ... hmmm ... you might be right. I originally left it off because they aren't exactly headquartered in Minnesota. But on second thought they do have a huge presence here. They might also want to compete with TCF by also getting into the naming rights game.
Truth be told, it is my hope, my dream, that the ballpark is named Wheaties Field. Now that would make sense given General Mills' long history here, and their obvious love of sports and the Twins. To me, it is a no-brainer. I also think it is what they've been waiting for.
Posted by: Shane at April 16, 2007 09:00 AM
I voted for 'other' because I think the name will be:
Cargill Fields
Posted by: Drake33 at April 16, 2007 10:12 AM
Cargill could definitely do it, but I would be very surprised with this. Not upset, but very surprised.
Posted by: Shane at April 16, 2007 10:40 AM
I like FreeAlonzo's suggestion (In Your Face Whiners! Field).
But I pseronally think we should name it
"Stop the Madness Field at Nick Coleman Park"
because by exhausting the public and making the anti-stadium folks look like lunatics with their inane rants they probably did more than anyone to ensure the stadium got built.
Posted by: tato at April 16, 2007 11:04 AM
I would say that of the local companies only a handful have the $ to pay for the naming.
I would put Target back in the mix,
Best Buy
U.S. Bank
Thrivent Financial
3M
Northwest (well, not anymore)
Medtronic - my darkhorse candidate
Ameriprise
General Mills
Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Red Lobster)
I like Wheaties Field a lot, but I think Medtronic may surprise - Medtronic field (insert all the "you needed a pacemaker for last nights game" jokes)
I also think that Target Park is a very real possibility.
Posted by: CJ at April 16, 2007 11:13 AM
Well, I suppose it will be one of those corporate names. But what I want is, Killebrew Park.
Posted by: Dave T at April 16, 2007 11:21 AM
Target would have a whole complex of sports in the warehouse district
Posted by: MOJO at April 16, 2007 11:28 AM
One of the Strib guys (Sinker?) suggested "Sid Hartman Field at Garbageburnerville". I realize that this is water under the bridge but I really think the people who are paying for the stadium should have a say in it's name.
Posted by: BMac at April 16, 2007 11:50 AM
Medtronic Field ... maybe. I would, again, be very surprised. I guess the list I put together only includes who I think really have a chance of putting together a bid. If I did it again, I would probably include Wells Fargo, but not Medtronic (or Cargill). I just don't think it will happen. Maybe we should make a wager out of it! Set up odds and all that and then put together a big pool! Anyone up for putting something together that all Greet Machiners can participate in?
BMac, I agree. I wish Hennepin County residents could name it because whatever we come up with, even Hennepin County Taxpayers Field, is better than what it will be (unless it is Wheaties Field).
And to the person reading this site from Virginia Tech, how are you holding up out there? I sincerely hope you and your friends are all right. Please let us know ...
Posted by: Shane at April 16, 2007 12:00 PM
Shane, I agree Wheaties would be good--think if had been by the Guthrie in the Milling District--what a tie to history!
Cargill and Medtronic don't fit because stadiums tend to be named for people who market to consumers.
Best Buy would generate way too many puns but it would be right given consumer marketing and the corporate home. Ameriprise (please no) also makes sense.
Northwest Airlines would have been a likely candidate pre-bankruptcy.
Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 16, 2007 12:48 PM
Thanks for the thoughts Shane, I haven't commented around here lately because politics aren't really my thing, but I have been reading. I was on campus this morning when all the shootings took place. The building I was in is right next to the engineering building that got shot up. We could hear the shots from the plaza between the buildings. They took us down to a lower room and locked us in for a while until things cleared up and they evacuated campus. But I am safe, and so far everyone I know is too, but we will see how things play out. Thanks for the thoughts.
I should be around more often now that it looks like this thing will get built finally.
Posted by: Tommy at April 16, 2007 01:08 PM
Shane ---
That would be a classy thing for ole Smilin' Carl to leave as a legacy - allowing "the people" to name "their" stadium. Killebrew Field, Puckett ---, my favorite = Bob Casey Memorial Ballpark. It's better than trying to take it with you.
Posted by: BMac at April 16, 2007 01:08 PM
Well, if it has to be a corporate name, I like Land O' Lakes Field best, because it actually has something to do with Minnesota. If I had my way it would be called Puckett Park.
Posted by: ldfs at April 16, 2007 01:23 PM
I have to think that it's possible the franchise will compromise with a name. Something like Puckett Field at Best Buy Ballpark seems likely.
Posted by: CJ at April 16, 2007 01:29 PM
Thanks for checking in Tommy. Your first hand account sent chills down my spine. Thank God you and your friends are all right. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and the Virginia Tech campus.
Puckett Park is probably everyone's dream name. Personally, I think Killebrew Field might be more appropriate given the Killer ruled at the old Met. What about Killebrew/Puckett Field? Like the Gibson/Nagurski building here at the U?
Whatever ... there is no way the name won't be sold to some corporation. Pohlad is too used to making money. He'll try to do it until the day he dies.
Posted by: Shane at April 16, 2007 01:31 PM
FWIW, the main reason I'm thinking that Cargill Fields would be a good name, is that Cargill is already a major advertiser at the Dome. They currently have the prime ad space behind home plate. Next time you watch a game, check out the space behind the ump. I'll try to find a picture.
Their major product is corn and/or grain distribution. Corn + Fields = Brilliant. I just don't know if there is that much of a jump to think that they might want to be involved with the naming rights.
Bottom line; if Cargill/3M/Best Buy gets it, I'd love it. If a bank or insurance company gets it, I'll only be mildly disappointed.
Posted by: Drake33 at April 16, 2007 01:43 PM
I thought Grain Belt Premium Park, but then I would feel like we were disrespecting Jim @ Summit, so I voted for Summit field.
Option 2 - Spam Stadium. They could sell Spam Dogs, Spam Nachos... you name it!!
Posted by: zooomx at April 16, 2007 02:22 PM
The guys at Schell's (who brew Primo) don't have that kind of money. Neither does Jim at Summit, not even close.
I shudder at the prospect of Hormel or Spam buying the naming... it's terrifying.
Posted by: CJ at April 16, 2007 03:07 PM
If they really do have to squeeze every last nickel out of this deal, and it seems doubtful that they won't - Land of Lakes Park kind of kills two birds with one stone.
Posted by: BMac at April 16, 2007 03:49 PM
A HUGE player that no one has yet mentioned is UnitedHealth. Well, they're huge in terms of the money they have, anyway. Perhaps stamping their name on the new field would give them some positive publicity; something they need with all of the William Maguire stock option stuff going on.
As for Wells Fargo, they're not a huge player with it comes to naming venues. They have their name on two arenas (Tempe, AZ and Des Moines, IA), but they're both college or semi-pro venues. I could see it, though, because their massive home mortgage business is still based here. I would be stunned if US Bank got in the game because it just doesn't seem to be "them."
Wheaties would be awesome. I think Land 'o Lakes is too regional to benefit from or afford the kind of national exposure naming rights bring. That said, I think the name has to belong to an entity that markets directly to average-Joe consumers. So, considering that and the available advertising dollars, my top 3 are Best Buy, Wells Fargo, and Target. I'll throw in General Mills as a dark horse candidate.
Posted by: The Tube at April 16, 2007 04:38 PM
I think we should support some of Minnesota's smaller businesses. How about:
Surdyk's Stadium
Al's Breakfast Field
Nye's Polanaisse Park
(sorry, all these name are making me a little batty...)
Posted by: tato at April 16, 2007 04:56 PM
STM,
You honestly don't know one person that has ever attended a Twins game in over 35 years? That is astonishing.
Anyway, I think it would lend tremendous credence to your arguments if you had attended a Twins game at some point. I know you are entitled to your opinion on any subject, but I am more inclined to take note of it if you have some experience. Have you ever attended an MLB game anywhere? I would think it would be difficult for you to malign the new design, make fun of those of us "pining for days bygone", or be so desperately against this site, when you have never seen a game at all.
Posted by: Derek at April 16, 2007 05:00 PM
What about Dairy Queen Field? We could nickname it "The Blizzard".
Posted by: Derek at April 16, 2007 05:04 PM
^that's actually not too bad...
Posted by: tato at April 16, 2007 05:05 PM
Maybe I'm thinking too much like Phil Krinkie, but how about calling it "The Boondoggle!" As long as it is not called "Carl Pohlad Memorial Field," I'm happy with anything!
Curt in Grand Forks
Posted by: Curt Hanson at April 16, 2007 05:41 PM
KEMPS FIELD- Kemps is a Minnesota tradition. Obviously PUCKETT PARK would be the best name but that'll never happen. How about "PUCKETT PARK AT KEMPS FIELD"?
Posted by: Bruce at April 16, 2007 05:48 PM
Taxapalooza Continues in Minnesota House
SAINT PAUL - (April 16, 2007) - House Republican Leader Marty Seifert today said the tax spree at the State Capitol continues.
.....
jeff, please don't copy entire articles into the comments. I don't think the copyright holders would appreciate that too much. Do you have a link for the rest of this article? Shane
Posted by: jeff at April 16, 2007 05:50 PM
I think we should prepare for the worst name imaginable. It will go to the highest bidder...probably in excess of $5M annually. They did the same with my Gophers; TCF Bank Stadium, and they will do the same with the Twins park. For the non-sports fan, I can definitely understand the frustration of a taxpayer funded ballpark, and a corporate name to top it off. Take heart non-baseball fans, someday pro sports will all come crashing down...and then you will be able to laugh a little.
Posted by: Derek at April 16, 2007 06:44 PM
Wow! Is that ever pessimistic. Can't say I disagree though with "the worst name imaginable" bit. I think you are on to something there, Derek.
As far as pro sports coming crashing down, they have been saying that since the beginning. I've seen articles from magazines in the 1940s saying baseball can't survive because of this or that. And yet it does. It is hard to believe, but it does.
Posted by: Shane at April 16, 2007 06:49 PM
4/16/07 Release from Rep. Seifert:
New tax bill, authored by Representative Mike Jaros (D-Duluth), would raise taxes:
* Raise taxes from 5.35% to 6% on the first dollars you earn. The higher tax would be raised on the first $21,310 you earn, instead of the first $17,570.
* Raise taxes on the next set of money you earn from 7.05% to 8%. The higher tax would be raised from $57,710 to $69,990.
* Raise taxes on whatever you earn above $69,990 from 7.85% to 8.5%.
The tax increases would automatically adjust for inflation.
Raising Taxes on Beer, Wine and Distilled Spirits (HF2422) This bill, authored by Representative Karen Clark (D-Minneapolis), raises the tax on beer by 250%, raises the taxes on wine by 276%, and raises the tax on distilled spirits by 355%.
"The irony of Minnesota Democrats never ceases to amaze me. As Minnesotans rush to meet the tax filing deadline, the Democrats are voting to raise your taxes. Minnesotans, especially middle class families, better start saving their dollars because the Democrats are coming to take them away," Seifert said.
Posted by: jeff at April 16, 2007 08:05 PM
Ummmm ... jeff. You do know that the stadium bill was passed by a Republican controlled House, under the leadership of Republican Steve Sviggum, and that the stadium bill was signed by the Republican governor Tim Pawlenty? Does this ring a bell?
Just because we want a stadium does not mean we all want more taxes. I'm not quite sure what you hope to accomplish by letting us know the Democrats want to raise taxes. What is your point?
Posted by: Shane at April 16, 2007 08:51 PM
If I had it my way,It would be Puckett field.
Posted by: Alex at April 16, 2007 08:54 PM
"Pro sports comes crashing down" -- interesting idea.
In a way, going back just a few decades, it already has -- it certainly isn't serving the same constituency anymore, at least not in the same ways. Sadly, the stadiums and arenas themselves are largely corporate playgrounds, and most forms of "fandom" these days require at least a middle class income level and relatively significant monetary investment. Of course, the nature of our economy and infrastructure has also changed quite a bit too... but I digress.
I could see pro sports possibly becoming "too elite" and start losing ground, or a big economic crash would obviously impact it, but pro sports has really become ingrained in people, and the one thing that I think could have displaced it (modern technology) has actually promoted it immensely.
Posted by: spycake at April 16, 2007 09:03 PM
Funny, Nick Coleman's glowing tribute to the Wild and their fans in his column today makes now mention of the public financing required to get the X built. I can imagine a similiar column about the Twins and their fans in 2012 or so again overlooking what he has argued so strongly against. Maybe he should have asked those 3 ladies in his column how they feel about public money for stadiums. Oh yeah, he wouldn't get the answer he wants. What a hypocrit.
Jiminstpaul
Posted by: Jiminstpaul at April 17, 2007 04:50 AM
Who coined the phrase "investing in community?"
Jerry Bell, lead man in the Minnesota Twins' bid for a new stadium, has given up on one of the arguments that the team used to make in pressing its case.
A publicly subsidized stadium could be great for the club, but Bell isn't saying it would also spur business activity in Minneapolis or Hennepin County.
In dropping the stadiums-as-economy-boosters argument, the Twins are acknowledging what economists long have argued: Stadiums built for pro sports fail to deliver measurable financial returns for their communities.
The histories of the Xcel Center, Target Center and Metrodome show that stadiums usually fall short of promises that they will provide monetary benefits to the public.
Consider the Metrodome: Opened in 1982 at a total cost of $68 million, its boosters predicted that the stadium would be a magnet for new construction in a part of downtown that hadn't seen new private investment for years. Instead, the building boom of the 1980s and 1990s in downtown Minneapolis bypassed the Metrodome neighborhood.
"We put a stadium in the middle of nowhere and nothing developed around it," economist Art Rolnick said of the Metrodome. "If these things are magnets for economic development, what happened?"
The outcome should be no surprise, said Rolnick, director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
The Target Center, acquired by the city of Minneapolis from private developers at a cost of $74 million in 1990, now sits next to the Block E entertainment center, but Block E was built only through $40 million in public subsidies.
The Xcel Center, opened at a total cost of $130 million in 2000, became something of a laboratory this past winter for measuring whether the presence -- or lack -- of professional team sports hurts a city's economy, when the NHL lost its entire season because of a labor dispute between players and owners.
From November through April, sales tax receipts in St. Paul totaled $7 million, up $181,000, or 2.6 percent, from the same period a year earlier, when fans were regularly filling the Xcel for Minnesota Wild games, according to the St. Paul Office of Financial Services.
"If [fans] don't go to NHL games, they don't stop spending money," said Robert Baade, economist at Lake Forest University near Chicago. "They spend money on other things."
The rest of the story:
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 07:44 AM
Has anyone heard anything more about the Vikings releasing their design on Thursday?
Posted by: MOJO at April 17, 2007 08:45 AM
Potential Stadium Names
Rounding out Minnesota's corporate roster on the Fortune 500 list:
Supervalu, No. 117.
U.S. Bancorp, No. 123
CHS, No. 166
Northwest Airlines, No. 195
General Mills, No. 213
Medtronic, No. 222
Xcel Energy, No. 251
Ameriprise Financial, No. 297
Land O'Lakes, No. 329
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, No. 349
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, No. 370
Hormel Foods, No. 403
Mosaic, No. 427
Ecolab, No. 457
Nash Finch, No. 476
Posted by: MOJO at April 17, 2007 09:13 AM
Oooohh!!! Hide the children and bury your savings in the backyard, the Democrats are coming to steal your babies and your money! I'm so tired of these perpetuated stereotypes. Wake up and smell the coffee:
http://www.startribune.com/561/story/1119729.html
Now, feel free to disparage the Star Tribune and ignore the facts in your desperate attempt to preserve your fragile world-view. It's certainly easier than admitting you're WRONG.
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 09:40 AM
Another overlooked biggie: Travelers Insurance (Formerly St. Paul Travelers, formerly The St. Paul Cos.). I don't expect that they would have a lot of interest in a Minneapolis stadium, however.
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 09:48 AM
Thought folks might want a break from all the tax bitching. If so, there's a pretty keen profile on Dave St. Peter in this month's issue of Rake Magazine:
http://www.rakemag.com/stories/section_detail.aspx?itemID=27940&catID=146&SelectCatID=146
It gives some insight on why he was wearing a UND jersey that folks commented on a while back.
My apologies if this has been shared before, but I couldn't remember having seen it.
Posted by: Snyder at April 17, 2007 10:36 AM
Thanks for the link Tube. By actually reading it, we can deduce that MN revenue ranks;
#6 in personal income taxes;
#16 when factoring property and other excise taxes, and;
#36 when factoring; the average state derives more than half its total revenue from nontax sources such as utility charges, federal transfers, park fees and tuition at public colleges. These, too, have generally been low in Minnesota. If you combine all sources of revenue -- the most comprehensive measure of the burden of government -- Minnesota ranked No. 36 in 2004.
I suggest we double tuition and call it good enough. That should pop us back up into the top ten.
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 10:52 AM
Funny the Strib would use '04 data in their article when '05 stats are available. Nothing skewed there....
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/staterevenuespc-20070201.pdf
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 10:58 AM
Hadn't thought of United Health, but that would certainly make sense.
DQ Field would be fun--don't know if Mr. Buffet does the name thing.
Another player--Lawson Software. Not sure what shape they are in right now.
Super Valu--like Best Buy--certainly fits the Twins business concept.
Remember it does not have to be a local firm. Any big corporate consumer firms out there still looking to brand something.
And there is no way the Twins don't sell the naming rights. They'll need the revenue to pay off the debt when they borrow the money to make Carl's contribution.
Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 17, 2007 11:00 AM
I just read that MOA wants more state money. WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE MARY, STM????????
Go create a blog and bitch about current proposals which you might be able to stop instead of beating this dead horse. Maybe you'll be so successful that you'll be able to turn back the clock so far to have Cedar Ave a gravel road again.
Posted by: kevin in az at April 17, 2007 11:05 AM
Do you need a lesson on the difference between TIF and direct spending again?
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 11:14 AM
I think they (MOA) want more than TIF (e.g., waiver of sales tax on construction related costs, state funding for a parking garage paid for by a Bloomington sales and loding tax).
Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 17, 2007 11:43 AM
Thomson West is looking for the building materials sales tax exemption;
http://www.startribune.com/561/story/1124694.html
One mans (who happens to be mayor of Bloomington) view of what the MOA means to MN. And all they want is a parking garage.
http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1124681.html
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 11:49 AM
NEWSFLASH........
YOU LOST THE STADIUM BATTLE, GET THE F*CK OVER IT!
Posted by: kevin in az at April 17, 2007 12:08 PM
Please explain why and how MN could go from #36 in 2004 to #16 in 2005 when during that year the two legislative houses were split and the governor was Republican "No New Taxes" Pawlenty. Clearly, the calculations are different.
"If [fans] don't go to NHL games, they don't stop spending money," said Robert Baade, economist at Lake Forest University near Chicago. "They spend money on other things."
Rephrased:
"If [consumers] don't go to THE MOA, they don't stop spending money, they spend money AT OTHER MALLS."
If that is the logic you support, then it doesn't apply exclusively to sports venues.
I think we'll take a lesson in the differences between TIF and direct spending when you take a lesson in posting with some class and respect.
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 12:09 PM
Kevin in AZ -- AMEN!!!
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 12:12 PM
I'm sure 14,000,000 people would fly into MN to shop at our other malls. Your "logic" doesn't surprise me.
I'm also sure the Strib's never used selective data to support an EDITORIAL position. Funny the article doesn't reference any sources for their (ahem) data. And I can't seem to find any either.
Kev - I don't see any boom cranes at the site. I'm not sure the cause is lost, yet.
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 12:18 PM
zzzzzzzzzzz...
Posted by: Freealonzo at April 17, 2007 12:24 PM
In the immortal words of Charlie Brown, "Good grief!"
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 12:44 PM
Hey, it's a Minnesota tradition to get together to argue about stuff. Look at the DFL!
Posted by: Dave T at April 17, 2007 01:29 PM
STM, I think you DO need to give us a lesson on the difference between TIF and direct spending. If you honestly think TIF isn't moving money out of one pocket, and into the other, than my respect for your argument just took another hit.
First, you haven't ever been to a baseball game, which is amazing considering some of the arguments you have put forth on this site. And now you are actually trying to suggest that one form of subsidy is so much different than another.
They both cost the government the same amount of money. The only reason TIF is more palatable is because people don't understand it. And, when properly position, it SOUNDS better. It's the same thing when some of these anti-stadium politicians suggest that this Twins ballpark will cost the taxpayers of MN over $1B. People don't understand the time-value of money.
I believe that you really do understand all of this stuff, and are just trying to get us riled up (successfully I might add), but if you don't, then it's time you take a step back and closely analyze this.
Posted by: Derek at April 17, 2007 02:03 PM
Derek –
Since you asked; to boil it down to its simplest form, TIF is not moving money out of one pocket and into the other; it’s simply differing money the taxing authority wouldn’t get if the development never happened anyway.
For example, if I own a business that’s going to bring jobs to an area, I might suggest that a host community fund certain items I need to locate in their community. If the community says “no”, then no harm no foul. I simply go someplace else and the community does not experience that increase in revenue. However, if the community decides to provide what I ask for as TIF, they’re simply using the increased property tax revenue (a result of me locating there) and earmarking those funds to pay for the improvements I required. I haven’t cost the city anything and the city essentially has brought jobs and other community perks to their area for no cost as they’re using my increased tax revenue to fund my relocation. The upside is, after those improvements are paid for, the increased tax revenue keeps flowing.
By creating a government “commission” to hold title to the ball park, the Twins have just effectively circumvented paying any property tax on this so called improvement. The only result of the Stadium financing plan is; “money flowing to the Twins” there is no economic, social or tax benefit ever flowing back to the HC residents that is associated with this plan. We’d have been better off just cutting Pohlad a check for a hundred million directly. It’d have only cost HC about 1/10th as much, after interest.
Also, I don’t need to go to a baseball game to know that this abuse of power is an injustice to Hennepin County residents and will NOT benefit, add or otherwise increase anybody’s “quality of life.” In fact, it will do the opposite.
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 02:32 PM
Your boy Art Rolnick, who thinks publicly funded stadiums are a bad idea, also thinks TIF is a bad idea:
But one economist says using any amount of public money to help corporations doesn't make sense. Art Rolnick, director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis, says giving tax breaks to large companies is bad public policy and can hurt a community.
"Because what you end up doing is taking money that would be going for public things - for schools and roads, and you're giving it to selective businesses - not all business but the ones who play the games," says Rolnick.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200202/26_postt_fingerhutmoney-m/
He also thinks that publicly-funded education, which you so lambasted, is a GOOD idea:
The returns to ECDPs are especially high when placed next to other spending by governments made in the name of economic development. Yet ECD is rarely considered as an economic development measure.
For example, tax increment financing and other subsidies have recently been used to locate a discount retail store and an entertainment center in downtown Minneapolis, and to relocate a major corporate headquarters to suburban Richfield and a computer software firm to downtown St. Paul. Can any of these projects, which combined represent an estimated quarter of a billion dollars in public subsidies, stand up to a 12 percent public return on investment? From the state’s point of view, if the subsidy is simply moving businesses within the state, the public return is zero. If the subsidy is required for the business to survive, the risk-adjusted public return is not merely small but could be negative.
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-03/earlychild.cfm
And the fact remains that if you have never BEEN to a baseball game, then you have ABSOLUTELY ZERO credibility in assessing how it affects the quality of the lives of people who HAVE been to a baseball game. Merely stating your opinion as a fact doesn't make it one.
Now who thinks that Silva can keep his fairy-tale season going tonight in Seattle? ;)
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 02:52 PM
On the contrary, Tube. The fact that I haven't been to a baseball game IS proof on if/how attending games impacts quality of life.
I like your links. They provide good information for the debate about government subsidies for private business. Both for and against. Neither article has anything to do with the financing mechanisms implemented for the stadium deal, though.
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 03:09 PM
STM, assuming your comments of appreciation are genuine, thank you for your gratitude. It does a lot to maintain the civility of the debate.
Returning to my point, I understand your logic to be: if I'm happy without X, which I have never experienced, then everyone else should be happy without it as well. That logic presumes that everyone aspires to live the "happy" life that you know. I think that's a dubious proposition.
I am glad that you are so happy and fulfilled in your own life despite the fact that you have never attended a Twins game. But you cannot extrapolate your own experience and apply it wholesale to every other person in Minnesota with broad assertions that, attending games "will NOT benefit, add or otherwise increase anybody’s 'quality of life.' In fact, it will do the opposite." Many people (like most of us here on this board) find that attending games does enrich life. And our opinions, how ever much you might like to disregard them, are worth just as much as yours.
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 03:36 PM
I think "Greet Machine Stadium" has a certain ring to it.
Posted by: Jeff A at April 17, 2007 03:51 PM
I like it! Shane, should we start a collection drive for the naming rights fees? :)
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 03:57 PM
Tube –
Touché. While I concede that my experiences don’t dictate another’s. My biggest gripe with anybody here has to do with the obsession of merely getting a stadium without regard for the injustice with which it was accomplished.
Just because something took 10 years to accomplish doesn’t mean it’s the best way to do it. Or even that “doing it” is best. While I’ve admittedly exaggerated some of my opinions to prove a point, the practices deployed by certain self serving HC commissioners is dependent upon the rabid supporters ignoring the economic consequences, or even the morality, of what was done, to focus solely on the result. It’s a high stakes shell and ball game. Or it was. And those of us in favor of smaller government and lower taxes (or at least more efficient) lost this one.
Personally, while I don’t enjoy baseball, before this issue I never faulted anyone for liking it, because “them” liking baseball, never cost me anything. Now it does. And the fact that it does, purchases for me the right to bitch and complain about it. And the small irritant that I’ve become to this blog by attempting to call attention to the wrong that has transpired (and if you still think its about a stadium, you don’t get it) is only a fraction of what is being felt by the majority (whether you admit it or not) of us who are being compelled to pay for this against our will.
Posted by: STM at April 17, 2007 04:11 PM
Oh puhleeze! As if every government expenditure had to be acceptable to each of us before it could be made! You are railing against the concept of taxation sir, and pointing at the new Twins stadium as an example of your displeasure with the process.
Posted by: Dave T at April 17, 2007 05:05 PM
STM --
Your candid explanation of your feelings is refreshing. In the heat of "battle" I think we all overplay our hand/position a bit.
I see a lot to agree with in what you said. I too favor efficient spending and government that is only as large is it absolutely needs to be. I too can see the countermajoritarian tinge that colors the .15% tax. And I too agree that publicly funding stadiums are a zero-sum or less-than zero-sum game when it comes to economics. In fact, I agree with Rolnick's proposition that all public funding for private capital improvements should be subject to a 100% federal tax -- it would end all such "incentives" and put communities on an even playing field. And it solves the problems of one community having to "take a stand."
But I am also a realist. Cities that lose teams wind up building stadiums in the end just to get them (or a replacement) back, and at a greater cost. Accepting the inevitable is just cheaper. So that's why, despite its imperfections, I'm a "stadium supporter" on this one. Maybe one day things will be different. But today is not that day.
Posted by: The Tube at April 17, 2007 05:17 PM
The point which is missed here time and time again is that it is possible to be "stadium supporter" while, at the same time, deploring the process by which the stadium came about.
Posted by: BMac at April 18, 2007 12:49 AM
I disagree. To support the stadium implies approval for the whole process. You can’t separate the two. And once done, you’re positioned to be a hypocrite when you deplore taxes that go to support something less than your pet project. Your position of disapproval for the process is marginalized by evidencing that you supported the result of arguably the same process when it achieves something you wanted.
Not everybody believes all taxes are bad. But the most divisive issues are a good indication to government, on which ones to stay out of. I think the best indication of a people’s willingness to cough up for things they deem important are school bond referendums. The failure of one to pass is usually the result of; a lack of explanation or going to the well too many times. But plenty of these appeals pass because people feel strongly about education. Additionally, its been brought up that people support higher gas taxes IF it is dedicated to road maintenance and construction, etc…the problem is that most people who rail against a specific tax or taxing process are pigeon holed into the stereo typical “anti-tax, anti-government” generally greedy compassionless conservative. And that’s by design! You can see by the flow of these arguments. Anti stadium = anti taxes of any type, anti government assistance for anything (LRT) or just generally anti tax, while being Pro stadium = happily paying more in taxes to improve what I think is quality of life (not for all people, but at least for me) and that’s how BIG I am.
And if you don’t think the fact that this process was successful now opens Pandora’s Box for any special interest wanting money, then you’re really naïve. This method will be used effectively against us for years to come. In fact it should now be called “being Opated.”
I am proud to be paying taxes in Minnesota. The only thing is – I could be just as proud paying half as much!,
Posted by: STM at April 18, 2007 07:30 AM
Its 3 cents on a $20 purchase, STM. Give me a break and quit whining. Those 3 cents are not going to send anyone to the poor house.
Curt in Grand Forks
Posted by: Curt Hanson at April 18, 2007 08:35 AM
So, what threshold of cost does a tax have to cross in order for anybody to principally disagree with it?
It's only 60 bucks a year; its only 10 cents a gallon; its only 150 bucks a year on your property taxes;
You tell me when this "death by duck bite" will end and how (assuming we can't call attention to insignificant amounts) and I'll give you your break.
Posted by: STM at April 18, 2007 08:41 AM
Why does everyone keep responding to STM....that is exactly what he is looking for....hes eating this up. Let him rant and just ignore him....soon he will just go away!
Posted by: MOJO at April 18, 2007 09:22 AM
MOJO,
I don't want STM to go away. I enjoy hearing the other side. It allows me to better understand how people think and it allows me to debate more effectively in the future, which is especially important to me as it relates to sports facilities.
This site should be about educating its visitors on the stadium issue, and this site does that better because of people like STM, who ask the right questions (most of the time anyway!!!).
Granted, I have enjoyed his recent posts a lot more since they are more professional and less attacking, but even when they had that added element, I figured it was all in fun.
Posted by: Derek at April 18, 2007 09:39 AM
Its called "perspective."
MOJO would rather hold hands and drool over the 5 generic renderings released so far then actually have to think.
Posted by: STM at April 18, 2007 09:43 AM
Having stood next to MOJO when he was looking at the 5 generic renderings, I can categorically state that he wasn't drooling.
Shane, stop the stadium name poll. I just voted for Summit and put it one vote ahead of Best Buy Field.
Posted by: Freealonzo at April 18, 2007 09:50 AM
Well, having to concentrate on his swallow reflex probably took his mind off reaching for your hand as well. But that doesn't mean he didn't want to.
Posted by: STM at April 18, 2007 09:52 AM
The attacking returns. This is the STM we could do without. Yet another mark against his arguments. Insightful and informative in one post, immature and childish in the next.
Posted by: Derek at April 18, 2007 10:20 AM
On a much more negative note; isn't the "ladies and gentlemen....we got him" announcement concerning the agreement necessary between the Twins and the RR approaching past due territory?
Posted by: STM at April 18, 2007 10:23 AM
Oh, I almost forgot to address Tubes “fear of loss” rationalization.
At what point in this saga did we actually start to take the Twins threat to move seriously? If they truly had options, they most certainly wouldn’t have hung around this long, would they?
Here's a selection of the Great Sid’s grandest moments of ballpark prognostication:
March 4, 1994: "One more prediction: Once the Wolves follow the North Stars out of town, it will be a lot easier for Carl Pohlad to sell the Twins for a big, big price to another city."
July 30, 1995: "My prediction is that the Twins will be gone by the year 2000 unless some major adjustments are made in their lease at the Metrodome or a new stadium is built."
January 10, 1997: "My prediction is that the Twins will be in Charlotte, North Carolina, by the year 2000 if a new stadium is not built. The Pohlads have put a terrific proposal on the table. And the state must do something for the Vikings. There are plenty of cities willing to give the world to get a major league franchise of any kind without getting the things that Pohlad is willing to give."
April 6, 1997: "You can write this in stone: The Twins will not be here after 1998, when Pohlad can escape his Metrodome lease, if a new stadium isn't approved during this legislative session."
May 1, 1997: "My prediction: This franchise will wind up in Mexico City in 2000 if a new stadium isn't built."
August 29, 1999: "If the St. Paul sales-tax vote is not favorable November 1, then the deal is off. And if Minneapolis can't find a way to build a stadium, you might say goodbye to the Twins after the 2000 season."
December 1, 2001: "Yes, Mr. Ventura, you and you alone can save the Twins. Furthermore, I predict you will do one great job when you appear in Washington, D.C., before the House Judiciary Committee on December 6. And you will have a chance to let baseball Commissioner Bud Selig know you are going to help get a stadium built in Minnesota to keep major league baseball."
March 31, 2002: "If you want my opinion, there won't be a Twins stadium without Hennepin County included and that means little likelihood of a buyer for the team. The result: This will be the last season of Major League Baseball in Minnesota."
May 2, 2005: "Believe me, if this stadium plan falls through, the Twins are done fighting for a stadium and the owners will either cut the payroll to $25 million from the present $56 million or sell the team to somebody who might move it."
Posted by: STM at April 18, 2007 10:50 AM
You should give the City Pages credit for that last comment, STM.
By the way, good discussion everyone. I'll be changing topics soon, though.
Posted by: Shane at April 18, 2007 10:53 AM
Yes. Kudos to CP. Also, in case anything is misconstrued to be my original thought or doing; all of my facts/quotes are usually pilfered off the interweb. My memory isn't that good.
Posted by: STM at April 18, 2007 11:01 AM
it's not a good discussion. it's the same crap for the last ten years. why are people praising this offensive poster? this is the last place on the web for the stadium whiners, all two or three of them. but the blog author gives them cover so i guess it's all good to make offensive comments as long you come back with an earth shattering orginal thought about taxation. the truth is, nothing that's been said is original or new. you don't know anyone who has gone to a twins game in the last 35+ years? really? you're a bitter old man. keep hijacking threads buddy, you've accomplished your goal of getting attention and steering the conversation to your one issue. your topic was the naming of the ballpark shane, not this bittermin's single issue obsession.
Posted by: mullen at April 18, 2007 12:24 PM
mullen, I can understand your frustration ... well, actually I can't. I am on cloud 9 right now. I am very happy that we are finally getting this ballpark built. I don't have anything to be upset about.
STM, on the other hand, is very upset. That I can understand. And I'm not saying I don't care, but I certainly don't share in his frustration. If he wants to vent here I won't stop him. But that doesn't mean we/you have to engage him.
Obviously some people want to "discuss" this with him. I'm glad I can provide the forum.
By the way, every single post I've written in the past month has been hijacked. I could write a post that says, "Hey everyone! How is it going?" and it would get 90 comments about all sorts of topics.
Anyway, I guess the crux of my message is be happy. I've given up trying to convince people like STM that a stadium is a good thing. It is impossible and it isn't worth it. I've also decided to stop being upset by it. I won for goodness sake! I'm getting a new stadium!
Posted by: Shane at April 18, 2007 12:40 PM
STM, come on no fair using Sid's wrong statements. Talk about picking the low hanging fruit. If I had a dollar everytime Sid was wrong about anything, I'd buy the naming rights.
Posted by: Freealonzo at April 18, 2007 12:41 PM
He's a freaking "bit". He must have gotten banned from Rube Chat and now he's here to continue his/her rantings.
Posted by: Drake33 at April 18, 2007 12:44 PM
Bringing in "Sid the Shill" was, indeed, kind of a low point - every kid on the corner knows better than to pay any attention to his insipid drivel. But STM did miss my point about "stadium supporters". Perhaps I should have said "stadium desirers". What I meant to get across is that there is nothing wrong with wanting to see a new stadium built (though STM seems to insist that there is) - the issue is the process by which this stadium is coming to be. The "any stadium, anyhow" crowd seem to feel that any process which results in a new stadium is good by definition. STM merely points out the numerous flaws in that logic.
Posted by: BMac at April 18, 2007 01:56 PM
April 18, 2007: "I predict that on May 19th and 20th Shane, Freealonzo and myself will be enjoying ourselves at Miller Park while watching the Twins/Brewers game."
Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at April 18, 2007 03:27 PM
Can anyone confirm that the Vikings are releasing their design tomorrow? I have a fresh batch of drool that needs dispatching.
Posted by: MOJO at April 18, 2007 04:06 PM
Vikes stadium;
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/vikings/?p=639
Only 10 days 'till the draft!
Posted by: STM at April 18, 2007 04:16 PM
It's funny that the blog that STM linked mentioned TCF Bank stadium possibly being too small. Um, if the queens continue on this path of disgust, 50,000 seats will be too many to try to fill for this team. Is the old Parade Stadium still around? Maybe that will suit Childress' JV squad.
Posted by: kevin in az at April 18, 2007 10:01 PM
I believe that TCF Bank Stadium is expanable to 60,000 on an individual game basis by adding temporary seats to the open end of the horseshoe. I am certain that was the original intent, but have not heard whether that was maintained in the final designs. Go Gophers!!!
STM, how do you feel about public financing of College Sports facilities?
Posted by: Derek at April 19, 2007 08:48 AM
Kevin,
Your post made my day. :-)
Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 19, 2007 08:55 AM
